miss
RESPONDENT
1. Whether there is any privity of contract between the Appellant and the Respondents
In the previous judgement the court had decided that there is no privity of contract between the appellant and the respondents since the general rule under the common law is that there is no privity of contract between the employer and the sub- contractor. The previous court has made a reference to the case of Royden (M) Sdn. Bhd V. Syarikat Pembenaan Yeoh Tiong Lay Sdn Bhd where the judge stated “ It must be borne in mind that the general rule under the common law is that there is no privity of contract between the employer and the sub-contractor.” We affirm that the decision made by trial court was right. We hereby support our argument by referring to the case of Kepong Prospecting Ltd v. Schmidt where the former federal court held that the third party cannot enforce the agreement because he was not a party to the agreement. As comparing to our case, the sub-contractor is regarded as the third party as the main contract was made between the Respondents and Ibsul Holdings Sdn Bhd. Thus, by applying the principle stated in the case of Kepong, the Appellant was not a party to the contract and therefore, there is no privity of contract between the Appellants and the Respondents.
2. Whether the Respondents are contractually bound to pay the Appellant’s claim for the price increase
Since there is no privity of contract between the parties in dispute, we believe that the Respondents are not contractually bound to pay the said sum to the Appellant. Despite the fact that there is no privity of contract between them,there is no written contract executed. Section 2 of the Government Contracts Act 1949 where it provided “All contracts made in Malaysia on behalf of the Government shall, if reduced to writing be made in the name of the Government of Malaysia…” As the appellant failed to prove the presence of written contract, thus the Respondents then
1. Whether there is any privity of contract between the Appellant and the Respondents
In the previous judgement the court had decided that there is no privity of contract between the appellant and the respondents since the general rule under the common law is that there is no privity of contract between the employer and the sub- contractor. The previous court has made a reference to the case of Royden (M) Sdn. Bhd V. Syarikat Pembenaan Yeoh Tiong Lay Sdn Bhd where the judge stated “ It must be borne in mind that the general rule under the common law is that there is no privity of contract between the employer and the sub-contractor.” We affirm that the decision made by trial court was right. We hereby support our argument by referring to the case of Kepong Prospecting Ltd v. Schmidt where the former federal court held that the third party cannot enforce the agreement because he was not a party to the agreement. As comparing to our case, the sub-contractor is regarded as the third party as the main contract was made between the Respondents and Ibsul Holdings Sdn Bhd. Thus, by applying the principle stated in the case of Kepong, the Appellant was not a party to the contract and therefore, there is no privity of contract between the Appellants and the Respondents.
2. Whether the Respondents are contractually bound to pay the Appellant’s claim for the price increase
Since there is no privity of contract between the parties in dispute, we believe that the Respondents are not contractually bound to pay the said sum to the Appellant. Despite the fact that there is no privity of contract between them,there is no written contract executed. Section 2 of the Government Contracts Act 1949 where it provided “All contracts made in Malaysia on behalf of the Government shall, if reduced to writing be made in the name of the Government of Malaysia…” As the appellant failed to prove the presence of written contract, thus the Respondents then